Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #717475 > unrolled thread

The world is full of self-righteous morons

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The world is full of self-righteous morons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 09:46 -0800
    Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons % <%> - 2018-12-09 10:49 -0700
    Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-12-09 14:34 -0800
      Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 23:56 -0800
        Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 13:20 +0000
        Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 17:18 -0800
          Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 05:20 +0000
            Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:45 -0800
            Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:54 -0800
              Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 23:18 -0800
              Re: "Einstein's Bad" Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 12:55 +0000
              Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 14:12 +0000
                Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 06:56 -0800
                Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 06:59 -0800
                  Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 07:21 -0800
                    Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 16:14 +0000
                      Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 09:27 -0800
                        Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 23:49 +0000
                          Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:09 -0800
                          Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:29 -0800
                            Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 22:24 -0800
                              Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-13 06:34 +0000
                                Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 22:58 -0800
                  Re: "Einstein's Bad" moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 15:42 +0000
                    Re: "Einstein's Bad" James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 07:50 -0800
                    Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-11 10:10 -0600
            Re: "Einstein's Bad" Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-11 10:17 -0600
        Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:24 -0800
      Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 00:04 -0800
      Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-10 11:08 -0600
        Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 19:36 +0000
    Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:28 -0800
    Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 10:00 -0800
      Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-12-11 14:02 -0600
      Re: The world is full of self-righteous morons "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-12-11 16:26 -0800

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#717475 — The world is full of self-righteous morons

Consensus based arrogance is the norm anytime you are dealing with humans. People fool themselves into thinking they are independent thinkers. This is the delusion. This is our deepest misconception. The reality is that people that actually are independent thinkers, like myself, do so by way of strict adherence to scientific method. I know my limitations. I know that if I don't adhere to scientific principles I will regress into the behavior of pretending to understand what I really don't. Most people never realize this and live their whole live never suspecting it.

Humans have a huge capacity to pretend to understand and a very low capacity to be cognizant that they are pretending.

After I made the discovery that the notion that moist air contained gaseous H2O was a myth and it actually contains liquid H2O I didn't think it would be that controversial. Instead people get real emotional, arrogant, and desperate. They start deploying all kinds of political tactics, including name calling. Recently I had a Twitter argument with Patrick Moore (formerly of Green Peace). He stubbornly insisted that it was my responsibility to show him proof positive that moisture in clear, moist air (at ambient temps) contains liquid and not gaseous H2O. I pointed him to phase diagrams (based on experiments done in laboratories) that clearly indicate that I am right and he is wrong. He refused to acknowledge this evidence. Instead this self-righteous moron kept blabbing on and eventually blocked me from his twitter. 

https://twitter.com/SolvingTornadoe/sta ... 3521546240

The world is full of self-righteous morons who having once read something in a book are sure they know the truth.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#717476

On 2018-12-09 10:46 a.m., James McGinn wrote:
> Consensus based arrogance is the norm anytime you are dealing with humans. People fool themselves into thinking they are independent thinkers. This is the delusion. This is our deepest misconception. The reality is that people that actually are independent thinkers, like myself, do so by way of strict adherence to scientific method. I know my limitations. I know that if I don't adhere to scientific principles I will regress into the behavior of pretending to understand what I really don't. Most people never realize this and live their whole live never suspecting it.
> 
> Humans have a huge capacity to pretend to understand and a very low capacity to be cognizant that they are pretending.
> 
> After I made the discovery that the notion that moist air contained gaseous H2O was a myth and it actually contains liquid H2O I didn't think it would be that controversial. Instead people get real emotional, arrogant, and desperate. They start deploying all kinds of political tactics, including name calling. Recently I had a Twitter argument with Patrick Moore (formerly of Green Peace). He stubbornly insisted that it was my responsibility to show him proof positive that moisture in clear, moist air (at ambient temps) contains liquid and not gaseous H2O. I pointed him to phase diagrams (based on experiments done in laboratories) that clearly indicate that I am right and he is wrong. He refused to acknowledge this evidence. Instead this self-righteous moron kept blabbing on and eventually blocked me from his twitter.
> 
> https://twitter.com/SolvingTornadoe/sta ... 3521546240
> 
> The world is full of self-righteous morons who having once read something in a book are sure they know the truth.
> 
> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
> 
the truth is nothing more than how many people you can get to believe you

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717519

On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:46:22 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

> ... Recently I had a Twitter argument with Patrick Moore (formerly of Green Peace). He stubbornly insisted that it was my responsibility to show him proof positive that moisture in clear, moist air (at ambient temps) contains liquid and not gaseous H2O. 

And he is correct to do this. After all...

"The way our business works is that one who argues that a given model is incorrect and proposes a new one to replace it must also propose an experimental test that can clearly evidence the claims." - Dr. Richard Saykally 

... and you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence to support your position. Why is that?

> I pointed him to phase diagrams (based on experiments done in laboratories) that clearly indicate that I am right and he is wrong. 

This only reinforces the fact that you do not understand phase diagrams.

> He refused to acknowledge this evidence. Instead this self-righteous moron kept blabbing on and eventually blocked me from his twitter. 

It is not too hard to determine who the actual self-righteous moron is here.
 
> The world is full of self-righteous morons...

And you are certainly one of the best examples!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717544

On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:46:22 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote: 

> ... Recently I had a Twitter argument with Patrick Moore (formerly of Green Peace). He stubbornly insisted that it was my responsibility to show him proof positive that moisture in clear, moist air (at ambient temps) contains liquid and not gaseous H2O. 

And he is correct to do this. 

JMcG:
Was he correct to ignore the H2O phase diagram? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717549

On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 9:46:22 AM UTC-8, James McGinn wrote:

>>> ... Recently I had a Twitter argument with Patrick Moore (formerly of
>>>Green Peace). He stubbornly insisted that it was my responsibility to
>>>show him proof positive that moisture in clear, moist air (at ambient
>>>temps) contains liquid and not gaseous H2O.

>>And he is correct to do this.

>Was he correct to ignore the H2O phase diagram?

He was correct to tell you that it is up to YOU to prove your kooky
claims, not up to him to prove standard science just because you show up
and throw something at him.

So get to work!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717619 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

Was he correct to ignore the H2O phase diagram? 

He was correct to tell you that it is up to YOU to prove your kooky 
claims, not up to him to prove standard science just because you show up 
and throw something at him. 

You nitwits act like religious zealots. 

Answer my question you evasive twit.  Was it cirrect for Saykally to ignore the h2o phase diagram?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717649 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

James McGinn writes:

>>>Was he correct to ignore the H2O phase diagram?

>>He was correct to tell you that it is up to YOU to prove your kooky
>>claims, not up to him to prove standard science just because you show up
>>and throw something at him.

>Answer my question you evasive twit.  Was it cirrect for Saykally to 
>ignore the h2o phase diagram?

It was correct of Saykally to ignore you, at least until you prove your 
claim. As I already stated.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717654 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

LOL.  You got nothing!!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717655 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

So, let me get this straight, if you believe something, regardless of it being proven or unproven, it is wrong to consider alternative hypotheses?

Do you believe this?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717656 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

So, let me get this straight, if you believe something, regardless of it being proven or unproven, it is wrong to consider alternative hypotheses? 

Do you believe this? 

JMcG:
Only a moron would not consider an alternate hypothesis to an unproven model. 

R U A moron?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717663 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, let me get this straight, if you believe something, regardless of it
> being proven or unproven, it is wrong to consider alternative hypotheses?

They should be considered. In your case, briefly. Very, very briefly. 

> 
> Do you believe this?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717666 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

>So, let me get this straight, if you believe something, regardless of it 
>being proven or unproven, it is wrong to consider alternative hypotheses?

>Do you believe this?

It needs to be considered just long enough to determine whether there is
some proof of the hypothesis included with the alternative hypothesis, to
determine whether the purported proof needs further investigation or the
whole thing needs to be filed in the circular file.

It needs to be a step of the scientific method.

Remember, it is the responsibility of the creator of the alternative
hypothesis to provide proof of it, it is not the responsibility of those
using standard models to have to defend them every time some crank gets
cranky.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717670 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

Humans have a deep-seated emotional need to believe they understand their world and there is a lot of money to be made fulfilling that need. And since most science consumers don't have the time or the education to put much effort into it, the most money can be made giving these science consumers excuses for why they don't actually have to literally understand it. And so--for reasons of fiscal necessity--many scientific disciplines have dumbed down their models to go with the flow of what people want to believe. 

It is for this reason that there are certain concepts in every scientific discipline that are sacred. Their validity is beyond dispute and cannot be contradicted without the person being shunned by the larger discipline. Or, more simply put, certain subjects are taboo. 

The anomalies of H2O are a severe embarrassment to all of the scientific disciplines in which water plays a central role. And, obviously, this includes all of the natural sciences but also physics and chemistry. The misconceptions associated with these anomalies are central to all of the various disciplines in the natural sciences.

This results in a consensus of obnoxious dunces in the natural sciences. These nitwits dismiss and evade contradictions that conflict with these artificially simplistic models. Like martyrs to a religious cause, they are willing to sacrifice their own reputation in order to preserve the perceived sanctity of their science-based beliefs.

Stupidity lies at the heart of most traditional notions in the natural sciences.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717671 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

And yet you have no proof of your own model. 

Right?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717674 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

You accept a model you cant prove and you use that as the excuse to not consider alternative models.  

This is what science is supposed to NOT be about.

You fools are practicing religion, not science. 

Why dont you troll retards start your own newsgroup so you dont bother real scientists. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717685 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

James McGinn writes about himself but still in the second person:

>You accept a model you cant prove

James has this "cold steam" 'model' where there is no such thing as gaseous
water below its boiling point, but he cannot prove it.

Check.

> and you use that as the excuse to not consider alternative models.

James refuses to accept the alternate (to him, not to actual science)  
model of Dalton's Gas Laws, steam tables, etc. etc. etc.

Check.

>This is what science is supposed to NOT be about.

James is correct here. Science is not about promoting unsupported, 
unproven models like his "cold steam" model.

>You fools are practicing religion, not science. 

So should this "cold steam" theory that James has be considered as a 
religion?  While lacking a God/gods, it does have lots of unsupported
blind faith as most religions do.

me:
>>Why are you referring to yourself in the second person?

It's weird that James does this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717701 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes about himself but still in the second person:
> 
> >You accept a model you cant prove
> 
> James has this "cold steam" 'model' where there is no such thing as gaseous
> water below its boiling point, 

Right.  

> but he cannot prove it.

Lots of things can't be proven.  But that doesn't make their alternative valid science.  I can't prove BigFoot doesn't exist.  

> Check.
> > and you use that as the excuse to not consider alternative models.
> 
> James refuses to accept the alternate (to him, not to actual science)  
> model of Dalton's Gas Laws, steam tables, etc. etc. etc.

LOL.  You church ladies are so desperate that you stoop to putting words in other people's mouths.


> 
> Check.
> 
> >This is what science is supposed to NOT be about.
> 
> James is correct here. Science is not about promoting unsupported, 
> unproven models like his "cold steam" model.

LOL.  Yet it is your model.  I just put a label on it to accurately describe it.

Surely you don't deny that you believe gaseous H2O exists at ambient temperatures.  Do you?  

You retards should have stopped talking a long time ago.  Now that you've show your cards everybody is going to realize what complete idiots you all are.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717777 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

James McGinn writes:
>On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> James McGinn writes about himself but still in the second person:
>
>> >You accept a model you cant prove
>
>> James has this "cold steam" 'model' where there is no such thing as gaseous
>> water below its boiling point,

>Right.  

>> but he cannot prove it.

>Lots of things can't be proven.  But that doesn't make their alternative 
>valid science.  I can't prove BigFoot doesn't exist.  

So now you are claiming something like "because I can't prove it
it must mean it's right"?

>> Check.
>> > and you use that as the excuse to not consider alternative models.
>>
>> James refuses to accept the alternate (to him, not to actual science)  
>> model of Dalton's Gas Laws, steam tables, etc. etc. etc.

>LOL.  You church ladies are so desperate that you stoop to putting words 
>in other people's mouths.

So you do accept Dalton's Gas Law and water state diagrams? So how come
you refuse to answer my question about what happens, using Dalton's Gas 
Law, when you introduce 20 C water into 20 C dry air?

>> >This is what science is supposed to NOT be about.
>
>>James is correct here. Science is not about promoting unsupported,
>> unproven models like his "cold steam" model.

>LOL.  Yet it is your model.

No, "cold steam" is your baby. You invented it, you own it.

>Surely you don't deny that you believe gaseous H2O exists at ambient 
>temperatures.  Do you?  

I did post the nonzero vapor pressure of water at 20 C a couple days
ago. Do you even understand what that means? No?

So I'll ask again. Given that water has a nonzero vapor pressure at 20 C
(look at my earlier replies for the exact value if necessary), and
given Dalton's Law, tell us what happens when 20 C water is introduced
to 20 C dry air, and why.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#717783 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:50:10 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> James McGinn writes:
> >On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 8:14:27 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> James McGinn writes about himself but still in the second person:
> >
> >> >You accept a model you cant prove
> >
> >> James has this "cold steam" 'model' where there is no such thing as gaseous
> >> water below its boiling point,
> 
> >Right.  
> 
> >> but he cannot prove it.
> 
> >Lots of things can't be proven.  But that doesn't make their alternative 
> >valid science.  I can't prove BigFoot doesn't exist.  
> 
> So now you are claiming something like "because I can't prove it
> it must mean it's right"?

Who are you quoting here, retard?

> >> Check.
> >> > and you use that as the excuse to not consider alternative models.
> >>
> >> James refuses to accept the alternate (to him, not to actual science)  
> >> model of Dalton's Gas Laws, steam tables, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> >LOL.  You church ladies are so desperate that you stoop to putting words 
> >in other people's mouths.
> 
> So you do accept Dalton's Gas Law and water state diagrams?

Relevance?

> So how come
> you refuse to answer my question about what happens, using Dalton's Gas 
> Law, when you introduce 20 C water into 20 C dry air?

Do you ever have a point?

> 
> >> >This is what science is supposed to NOT be about.
> >
> >>James is correct here. Science is not about promoting unsupported,
> >> unproven models like his "cold steam" model.
> 
> >LOL.  Yet it is your model.
> 
> No, 

Did you change your mind?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#718083 — Re: "Einstein's Bad"

BTW, Daltons gas law pertains to gases, not vapor. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web